Allen Crider <allencri...@disciples.com> wrote: >John Gilman wrote:
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and >> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>Thanks!
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in >the US?
Apparently the IRS was cowed into submission when Scientologists started suing individual IRS workers, creating an administrative nightmare. So they gave up in a secret deal signed in 1993.
Less apparently is the claim that one of the major administrative parties of the IRS was a Scientologist.
The deal is still secret and there are some groups still trying to get that deal publicly scrutinised.
Scientologists, can, apparently, claim what they pay to Scientology as a tax deduction.
S --- "If it smells like a$$, its $cientology!" "Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data, alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC ** Let's have a Clambake! http://www.xenu.net !! Watch out for those A$$H0L&s - they BITE!
> My word... the man was a gibbering idiot. > Could anyone _please_ explain how people could possibly be convinced > by Ron's hysterical ramblings? He makes no sense whatsoever. My head > hurts.
> >>You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG > >>call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller > >>(see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through > >>all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous > >>scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
> >>Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
> It's certainly a lot stupider than I thought.
> Which reminds me... geek-types reading this should check out > http://www.networksplus.net/kelly/gtmhh2.html, and search for > "scientology" on the page, for a record of how the geniuses > at CoS failed to comprehend the mindboggling intricacies of > loopback. Gave me the giggles, first time I read it.
> Chyron
Hee hee - God Damn that slippery mastermind Major Domo anyway!
Tommy -- "... it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by the defendants to live by the law -- their apparently intractable conviction that they are somehow above the law. This is illustrated by Mrs. Hubbard's statement on the witness stand that she and her codefendants, including these two defendants, felt they could do to others whatever they perceived, however erroneously, others were doing to them."
-- Sentencing Memorandum in US v. Kember and Budlong; Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)
>> Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court, >> which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
> No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme > Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and > repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's > like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to > a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
> (1) partitioning the quid pro qou aspect and the nonquid pro qou aspect of > donations is proper. (If you watch public television you know they give gifts > for your "donation". That is a quid pro qou which makes the donation partly > deductible but DOES NOT REMOVE THE NONPROFIT STATUS of public television.)
> (2) An extremely high burden of proof, literally "no doubt" (which is higher > than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), that a religion is not entitled to standard > nonprofit tax treatment because it isn't truly conforming to the usual rules > for its activities but is only pretextually religious, must be met. The IRS > can read law even if most a.r.s. ranters can't. They know that proving with > "no doubt" that the Church of Scientology in the present day as presently > constitutued with actually living members is NOT qualifying was a burden they > would have a very hard time winning under.
> Now a.r.s. ranters might be convinced among themselves that because Hubbard > back in the 1950s suggested a religious corporation rather than a secular > structure to avoid regulatory agencies is some kind of solid proof that > Scientology is religiuos only as a pretext, forever, no matter how it evolves > and no matter who its members and their beliefs, and no matter what those > actual living members motives are as compared to a dead founder's, etc. But
I don't really care about the beliefs beyond comic relief value; it is the derogatory way in which Scn, Inc. treats its members, its community, and its responsibilities; the fraud and abuse of people and the law, through methods like overlitigating to silence criticism and using private investigators to harass critics that irk a lot of people, I think.
> the pravda that gets developed in a.r.s. by frequent repetition among a bunch > of ranters isn't anything serious I.R.S. or private tax lawyers need or should > in the least respect.
So why did Tax Analysts [the people in Washington DC who publish Tax Notes and other related documents] have to sue to see the final agreement that was eventually leaked to the Washington Post? Both the Post and the NY Times published stories about David Miscavige waltzing into the IRS and getting an instant meeting with the big cheese. There was a matter of several thousand individual cases of Scientologists dropping their cases against the IRS when tac exemption occurred. A deal was made.
Are Scientologists permitted to write off the expense of sending their kids to Scientology school (where Catnolic parents cannot write off such expenses for sending their kids to Catholic school). Why should Scientologists be permitted to make deductions that members of other religious organizations cannot?
> Read the actual case to know what it says. Don't just repeat the a.r.s. > "critic" party line as if yelling loud enough and saying it often enough makes > it a fact.
I think you have your hat on backwards here. That's HUbbard's method of 'proving' something.
> = The a.r.s. prime directive: Make Jokes About Scientologist's Deaths=
> Example, regarding Attorney Moxon and his UNFORTUNATE loss: "Maybe he > believes there are no underground transformer vaults in Europe." (JB > Lingerman)
There is nothing funny about any of the deaths in Scientology; not Moxon's daughter, not Lisa McPherson, not any of them. They are all senseless and could have been prevented.
http://mp3.com/MaggieCouncil XENU WORLD ORDER CD now available M.C.DiPietra <mdipie...@earthlink.net>, SP4, KoX "Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
kymus2...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote: >>From: John Gilman i...@eieio.org >>For in-depth information on the destructive and >>malicious belief system of scientology, check out >And for in-depth information on the destructive and malicious state of mind you >eventually acquire from associating with a.r.s. critics on a long term basis, >simply review the history of this newsgroup through a historical search. >A.r.s. is 75% cathartic venting by people who either started out demented or >learned to express their dementia by becoming a.r.s. regulars
And yet for some curious reason you're unable to offer any examples of incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise "sadly mistaken" comments about the norotious Scientology crime syndicate which gets provided here. For some very mysterious reason, you few remaining followers are unwilling to address the killing of Lisa McPherson, the swindle of Raul Lopez, the massive set of felony indictments against your mock "International Present," the massive espionage that your mad messiah ordered in the so-called "show white" case. The list of crimes your syndicate engaged in and continues to engage in is endless.
And even as we find your crime syndicate trying to suppress the truth about what Scientology really is in Slashdot.COM, you're unable to give an honest explanation as to why your crime syndicate feels the need to hide the truth about what Scientology sells to its unfortunate victims.
--- Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism Task Force at norf...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/ For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
kymus2...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote: >>From: Jim Byrd b...@NOSPAM.acm.org >>Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court, >>which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption. >No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme >Court said.
If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_ and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to qualify for tax exemption status. The crime syndicate still maintains their criminal network, however.
--- Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism Task Force at norf...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/ For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
>From: fr...@SPAMNOTlinkline.com >And yet for some curious reason you're unable to offer any examples of >incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise "sadly mistaken" comments about the >norotious Scientology crime syndicate which gets provided here.
I said search the posting history. It's been a long long debate over the years and a constant effluent cannot be criticized post by post, but one can get a very good idea of the quality of "news" and "critical" inquiry that predominates in a.r.s from doing that. I also recommend Bernie's website
for instances of how futile it can be to carry on a serious and rigorous converastion in a.r.s.
I don't have the job of defending the Scientologists, because I am no longer allied with them. It is not MY church anymore and hasn't been for a long time.
If you do want to know the Scientologists rebuttals, you should go to where they post as people have snipped at them time and again here for presenting their views here, telling Scientologists that a.r.s. is for the critics and the critic point of view is what is to dominate the forum. Some "free speech" commitment. I suggest Freedom mag as the principle source for rebuttals to a.r.s. allegations, to the extent such rebuttals exist. I believe you can find that at
> For >some very mysterious reason, you few remaining followers (SNIP)
In usual a.r.s. fashion you have made an assumption that because I don't approve of your views and your manner of spewing them about I am some Church of Scientology loyalist. This is false.
= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
It can for many reasons. My personal opinion is that Scientology needs the amount of lawyers and litigation it does in part because LRH was never able to handle the sort of give and take society expects of someone trying to push new ideas into society and so he just resorted to underhanded attacks on enemies. He had little ability to hold his own in debate. Even if this were not so Scientology would have had to sue like hell to keep hostile governments and vested interests from quashing it like a bug for reasons aside from the personal character defects of LRH.
>> Read the actual case to know what it says. Don't just repeat the a.r.s. >> "critic" party line as if yelling loud enough and saying it often enough >makes >> it a fact.
>I think you have your hat on backwards here. That's HUbbard's method of >'proving' something.
People who fight the Church of Scientology without thoroughly grounding themselves in their own good principles tend to wind up resembling the Church in quality of thought and low ethic of action in conflict eventually. A.r.s. tends to be proof of that.
= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
>From: fr...@SPAMNOTlinkline.com >If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_
Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!! I haven't simply "read" it you know-it-all, but had my understanding of it vindicated by other actual legally trained minds, which is something you obviously are not.
The Supreme Court handed down an opinion as to how the case was to be handled according to clarifications of law made by the Supreme Court. The Scientologists changed their approach to the actions below to take advantage of the opinion. They neither "won" nor "lost" in the Supreme Court, rather they had the law declared as between them and the IRS.
>and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to >qualify for tax exemption status.
What criminal network is this? What charges were filed against that association of people? None, of course. You just can't argue without namecalling.
> The crime syndicate still maintains >their criminal network, however.
I understand WISE maintains WISE. It is your invention that any association of Scientologists is therefore part of the corporate structure of the church and you don't back it up with anything but your own venom for anyone who isn't as rabidly anti-Scientology as yourself.
= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
In article<9067FBF1Btrollkil...@63.209.170.208>, Enoch
<r...@eruditorium.org> writes: >The kernel of the Slashdot philosophy, such as it is, is >the primacy of Open Source: information wants to be free. >Thus, basing a religion around "secret scripture" is like >keeping the source code for an operating system a secret. >It's something you don't want to do, as many eyes make all >bugs shallow. If Scientology, a putative operating system >for humans, were debugged, various defects (like the non- >existance of the Hawaiian islands, DC-8s, and atom bombs >75,000,000 years ago as per OT III) would have been resolved.
>Then again, debugging belief systems is something the human race >doesn't do well, regardless of the origin.
The trouble is, it is all bugs: if any of it is objectively tested this reveals that the basic ideas don't work. Therefore it is in their interest to keep it hidden.
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
On 18 Mar 2001 23:40:22 GMT, kymus2...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:
(chomp)
>People who fight the Church of Scientology without thoroughly grounding >themselves in their own good principles tend to wind up resembling the Church >in quality of thought and low ethic of action in conflict eventually. A.r.s. >tends to be proof of that.
We are so glad to see that *you* are above all of that.
>= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
Bernie, why don't you just post with your own account?
